Monday, February 8, 2016

Monday Meme

Liberals sure do love to use the "F" word...47,56,43,0,B


Ted Webb said...

John get back to what you do best, this crap is not a Sanders ad ,your better than this I think .

Margery Bills said...

Uh huh. Unfortunately I watch the news, tv, and politics channel surfing 24 hours a day. And sometimes I curse and sometimes I get on the Internet and research the areas of the states where the primaries are to occupy time and learn. And sometimes I laugh at or curse the candidates. And I remember the times I did office work for them on temp primary jobs- paid and volunteer. But I rarely mention I do that. Ha,ha - what a nerd. I am an independant. And even with no tv or radio-just Time or Newsweek in the past, I have forecasted right despite popular opinion. Well, my ancestors were around politics. For instance, my 5-great grandfather, John Dickinson, a lawyer from Delaware, signed the Constitution. My adopted mother consulted me in high school because she thought I had psychic insights (just observant).

Margery Bills said...

I had some reaction today when I heard Madelyn Albright (attended Mrs. Clinton's rally today) say that there is a special place in Hell when women do not support other women. By cracky, there are so many factors.

Margery Bills said...

John Kasich just said that Arnold Scharzenager told him that when people beat up on you, numb the beatings. (Everyone has jabs).

Quinn Satterwaite said...

They like using vulgarity because they think they are winning. In reality what is happening is that no one sees a point in engaging with someone who is an angry, disorganized leftist.

If we assume the Zero-Sum economy logic being used here then, the Bernie Bros should be rabidly against any new immigration since every new person who enters the country must make everyone else proportionately poorer. Since there were 92 million people in the country in 1910, someone 100 years ago had a standard of living 3x better than you.

And by extension, the GDP of the US can only ever be as large as that of Sumer.

This is why it is necessary to resort to obsenities.

Larry G said...

sometimes - perhaps not in John's case - it appears getting involved in religion these days also gets into these left/right memes...

as such I think religion in government is a disaster... always... and the source of much hate and discontent - and "us against them" mentalities..

what I've always much and enjoyed and appreciated was John's "problem solving" approach to living off grid - which involved - adopting technologies like solar and other sustainable technologies - that now has itself - become part of the left-right a certain extent.

Here's wishing for a New Year better than the last!!


Ronald Mahan said...

----- Ted Webb says: "your better than this I think". I think Ted failed to read what John Wells wrote about Sander's folly. The fault John exposes about Sander's is his remarkable difference to our huge National Debt! All Sander's FREE STUFF will not be paid for by the rich - simply because there are too few of them to get the job done. If elected - Sander's would greatly delay AMERICA'S return to fiscal sanity and constitutional government!

Larry G said...

so what does Sanders political philosophy have to do with life living off the grid?

just FYI - public roads are socialism... we take money from others to build roads where not enough people live to justify the expense of building them, right?

so Sanders philosophy also supports these other things:

same deal with emergency rooms - who says anyone who shows up there is entitled to treatment?

German - by the way - has free college and all European countries, Japan, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand have health care for all.

VirginiaMan said...

Amen John, Amen.

Quinn Satterwaite said...

"so what does Sanders political philosophy have to do with life living off the grid?"

Sooner or later Sanders runs out of other people's money. Then they have to look farther afield for people. And OPM.

Janet said...

Larry G said...

Quinn - you miss the concept we ALL pay for these things we say we want - like public roads, like public education, like "free" emergency rooms...

it's not other people's money - it's OUR money that we have - agreed to spend towards these things.. at least to this point in time...

we MAY well decide - as a country that we no longer want to pay - for public education..

that's a legitimate debate - but to demonize those who support it and always have versus those who have now changed their mind - needs to be acknowledged without name calling.

WhyR said...

No, Ted. He's not better than this. This is the real John Wells.

Larry G said...

Well it's John's blog and I suppose that whatever John decides to post he intends discussion which is fair enough.

as long as folks keep it civil and don't impugn each other - have at it.

I WILL SAY that when you start out calling others LEFTISTS that it's NOT a good start!


Wyowanderer said...

Good post, John. When you get this many people up in arms, you're doing something right.
Now about the "f" word-this is my ashamed face...Thanks for the gentle rebuke. The enemy multiplies kisses, but wounds from a friend can be trusted.

Quinn Satterwaite said...

"we MAY well decide - as a country that we no longer want to pay - for public education.."

So you are advocate that we ought to review value received for the money spent, eh? Its certainly true that we are paying 10x more for education and the test scores are worse than they were 40 years ago.

Which brings up Obama/Sander's proposal for the American Taxpayer to pay for community college so that students can relearn (possibly) things they didnt bother to learn in high school. Who benefits from this perpetual moving of the goal posts? Clearly there is a cost- I can think of much better things to do with my money.

Larry G said...

re: value for money - I certainly think it's worthy of study but more than that - we are also debating what govt should be doing at all or not - right?

Sanders is not advocating community college for high school dropouts. He's recognizing the reality of the 21st century in terms of education required for us to compete for global jobs.

Germany and other countries have made college "free" - but ONLY for the jobs that are available in the economy - not personal edification.

when you attribute these things to Obama or Sanders - you denigrate the basic issue and the value of debating it - you've already decided.

we have millions - unemployed who lost their jobs to 21st century technologies and they need to be re-trained for the jobs that DO exist

OR we're going to pay for their entitlements.. health care, food stamps, housing, etc.

just like with the ERs - it's not a question of what you want to pay for - it's a question of HOW you want to pay OR you would expand the discussion to include denial of entitlements also.


there would not be a road to John's place unless the govt took that land away from others then taxed you and me to pay to build the road.


John, more than likely got his education at a public school paid for not by him - but others.


when John went to the ER - they did not require payment up front - they spend money to fix him -then they discussed payment - right?

Ronald Mahan said...

Way to tell them Mr. Quinn Satterwaite! Free stuff for everyone - until even the rich go broke. Then living off the grid will become very crowded!

Ronald Mahan said...

----Larry G. said:

"there would not be a road to John's place unless the govt took that land away from others then taxed you and me to pay to build the road."

That tell me that Larry G. does not know beans about Terlingua Ranch road building. Private enterprise, not the government, simply stole those right of way from the existing land owners. Most were happy to have an improved method to get to their newly purchased hunting property. Especially since the land owner still retained title to the road right of way - and the roads were said to be PRIVATE ROADS. Of course, we also got to pay taxes on the right of way property - but Brewster County does not maintain those roads. Only the road builders made out like bandits - because improved access - enabled them to sell more land and make greater profits!

Larry G said...

well I don't know beans about Terlingua Ranch but I DO KNOW beans about Texas State Highway 118

AND I'm POINTING OUT TO YOU that had Texas taxpayers not taken that land and paid to build that road - it may well have ended up like the Terlingua Ranch situation.

so what is your choice? do you want no taxes and no eminent domain and let the private sector build roads or what?

do you want taxpayer-funded public roads that the govt creates by taking land from others?

it's EASY for folks to say the oppose the govt and "socialism" .

what I ask is that we recognize the realities of what we do already and ask if that also fits the definition of socialism?

fair question?

Quinn Satterwaite said...

"there would not be a road to John's place unless the govt took that land away from others then taxed you and me to pay to build the road."

What? People like having roads build because it increases the value of their property. Where is the evidence that it "the govt took that land away from others"?
And they arent taxing me to pay for the road. I'd imagine the country maintains the road and the funds are raised from people within the country.

The Sander's graphic proposes the logic that if there is any common benefit that is sufficient justification for violating the property rights of individual citizens. And we take the money from the people we have demonized first, so No Problem Bro!

Larry G said...

Quinn - do you think the government owned the land to start with and no private owners?

Do you know the difference between a Texas road and a county road?

do you know what Farm to Market roads are?

finally - I don't see that Sanders is proposing that ANY common benefit is sufficient - at all. He IS pointing out that public roads, public schools, public hospitals, Post Offices, and more are funded publically for a public good and have been that way for quite a while.

when we say that doing this is "leftist" it ignores the reality that we already do it for a LOT of things.

is the debate about the reality or something we imagine?

I'm okay with the country deciding whether we want to change this.. it's the way the Founding Fathers set us up.

but I DO think we ought to recognize what we've already been doing for decades and one of those things is having the govt take land from people and taxes from others to build roads that Amazon and Ups use to deliver "goodies" to us.

just the truth.. do we want to keep that idea or do we want to change to non-public roads?

Quinn Satterwaite said...

I get why you might want to change the topic to "Hey guys, cant we have a road. Please?" but the Monday Meme is really about:

a. using aggressive vulgarity to shut down discussion
b. "taking back money" ie zero sum game economics
c. "the 1% has been stealing" : demonizing an out group we want to justify stealing from to get free stuff

mike said...

Off grid living or politics whats it gunna be?

Dale said...

As long as ignorance and misery exist we have bigger problems than worrying about the rich. The rich, they know how to take care of themselves.

Larry G said...

Quinn - isn't that a made up image that someone created?

their opinion?

this guy -


Quinn Satterwaite said...

Well its the actual topic

Margery Bills said...

I have always admired the results of the Work Programs in the U.S. In the 1930's. The men constructed so many good quality projects in exchange for assistance. That could be administered again.

Larry G said...

you mean stuff that someone makes up?


for the record - I do not support Mr. Sanders nor the idea that we should be taxing the 1% to pay for "free" stuff for others.

at the same time - I do support recognizing the truth about what we do now... and have been doing for decades.

I actually do support willing seller/willing buyer transactions not eminent domain... and that if someone wants to build a road and charge for it - that's the real free market.

People who own part of the right-of-way for a road can truly be recognized as part owners!!!

I think the only public education should be core academic. Everything else including sports should be outside the public school and fee-based.

I do not think the govt should be giving loans to homeowners nor students.

I think if you drive a car -you should have to post a bond to pay for injury to others.

I do not think the Post Office should be subsidized - I think they should charge for the actual costs of mail and that UPS and Fed Ex should be able to directly compete and if it costs a dollar to send a letter - that's just fine.

I think everyone should have to sign a promissory note when they go to the hospital and make all of their assets subject to being taken if they can't pay.

I'm also in favor of the govt NOT giving tax breaks for employer-provided insurance nor rules that prevent the company from dumping old or expensive people if that is the rule for other insurance - make it all equal for everyone.

I'd opposed to Medicare for $120 a month. I think it should cost far more especially for those who have 80K and more in retirement income.

I'm opposed to the Armed Services providing health insurance for dependents. I think they should take the salary they get and go onto the open market and find the insurance that fits their needs.

want more?

Ronald Mahan said...

----- Larry G. asked?

"what I ask is that we recognize the realities of what we do already and ask if that also fits the definition of socialism? fair question?"

I don't doubt for a minute - that Americans already use a lot of socialistic practices. My point was simply - that the Terlingua Ranch road building exercise was pure unadulterated capitalism! You could not have picked a worse example - to be called socialism! Those capitalists made a lot of money - then left town so the new property owners could sort out their road problems - for the next 40 years.


Larry G said...

re: pure unadulterated capitalism

yep. totally agree.

and if folks think that is a better path than socialistic public roads - then so be it!

I just point out that we do have public roads, they ARE socialistic and they ARE a choice for people who say they do not wanting the government providing "free stuff" or even tax-funded "free stuff". All roads COULD be toll roads ... public or private..

choose your poison... you pays your money and makes your choices

just don't be living in a world different in your mind that the one we actually do live in physically!!!

Larry G said...

Ron - I was referring to Texas state highway 118, the road that John uses to get to Alpine and Terlingua and get his Amazon and UPS "stuff" on.

so you do have a good example of what happens with a private road and I would ask you - would you have the govt intervene?

and would you advocate that the Terlingua Ranch folks take over Texas 118 so that taxpayers no longer have to be responsible for it and it actually gets paid for by the folks who actually use it?


Quinn Satterwaite said...

"what I ask is that we recognize the realities of what we do already and ask if that also fits the definition of socialism?

fair question? "

Government ownership of the means of production.
A road doesnt produce anything of and by itself.

Larry G said...

a road is a key to commerce though right?


gasoline, groceries in Terlingua delivered by tanker truck

all that stuff that John buys... ;-)

Quinn Satterwaite said...

There is a gigantic difference between a local road paid for locally, and a National Socialism.

Larry G said...

how so?

there are no "national" roads by the way.

there are state roads, county roads, and local roads

and all 3 govt use eminent domain and taxes to build and pay for them which includes 3 things - build, operate and maintain - the later two cost far more over time than the first - but the first would not be possible without eminent domain - without govt taking the land that people refused to sell ... which is almost always required for anything that extends miles... and crosses dozens of properties...

Texas 113 is very definitely NOT a "local or even a county road...

modern roads cost on the order of a 2-5 million a mile and interstate 4 lanes start at 10-20 million and go up from there.

so you can do a back of envelope calculation for say - a road like Texas 113 from Alpine to Terlingua maybe 70 miles.. built long ago for far less than 70 million but then there were far less people with far lower incomes also.

but say you needed a 10 mile road today and you had 1000 people.. that's 10K a person - so you know now why the Terlingua Ranch deal is really about how much and who pays.

this does not include what it takes to keep them up... re-surface, plow, deal with ditches and shoulders and bridges and culverts. Anyone who has had to put a culvert on their property knows that deal and a bridge? big bucks...

most of us take all of this for granted - including the ones who think they are opposed to "big" government!


Again - I'm NOT an advocate for more government. In fact, I'm fine with being a minority when we vote but I DO THINK we should deal with the realities of what govt does do - that we often do take for granted especially if we say we want to reduce that role.

Ronald Mahan said...

More Terlingua Ranch misinformation from Larry G. - who asked:

1. "so you do have a good example of what happens with a private road and I would ask you - would you have the govt intervene?" Answer - NO!

2. "and would you advocate that the Terlingua Ranch folks take over Texas 118 so that taxpayers no longer have to be responsible for it and it actually gets paid for by the folks who actually use it?" Answer - Not NO - but Hell NO!

You are seriously misinformed about the Terlingua Ranch - and your questions do not make good sense. How in the world could the non-resident property owners, which are 90 percent of all T.R. owners, be the majority users of TEXAS 118? AND BY YOUR ERRONEOUS THOUGHT PROCESS - THE ONES WHO SHOULD PAY FOR 118! That is not socialism - that is outright thievery!

Larry G said...

Ron - I was asking a rhetorical question about whether you'd like the State or a private company - ie. NOT the govt to do roads ...

so it was ALL folks who live along 118 who would then form a group to take care of it - as opposed to having the State do it...

in other words - would you rather have the folks who live along these roads be the ones who are responsible for them ?

I had asked this in the context of this discussion about the govt being in charge of things and some folks wanting the govt to get out of things the private sector or private owners could do .

I am not advocating that. I'm pointing out that the process of non-govt, private roads can be WORSE than govt roads - that most of us actually PREFER than the govt do roads !!!

but govt roads are essentially socialism.. since they do use eminent domain and they do tax everyone and then put roads selectively so that not only get the same benefit in proportion to the taxes they pay.

sorry to confuse or from your perspective to miss your point!

Ronald Mahan said...

Same old B. S. from Larry G. You say something - then when it is in error - you say you were talking about something else!

You first said:

"and would you advocate that the TERLINGUA RANCH FOLKS take over Texas 118 so that taxpayers no longer have to be responsible for it and it actually gets paid for by the folks who actually use it?" ,

After finding that to be in error, Larry G. said:

"so it was ALL folks who live along 118 who would then form a group to take care of it - as opposed to having the State do it..."

With all your doublespeak - you must be a card carrying SOCIALIST! I rest my case.


Larry G said...

no error!!!

I was explicitly asking if you prefer the govt doing roads or the private sector.

you said local folks for Terlingua and cited issues

I asked if that KIND of approach to roads be expanded to a wider scale of longer roads.. to include those who lived along them and used them.

name calling is not needed...

do you prefer to have the govt doing roads?

that's a simple straight forward question without any double-speak what-so-ever.

if you did not understand the question or I messed up explaining it - then sorry.

the original question still stands - do you prefer the govt doing roads rather than the private sector?

this is a fundamental question - about government.

Steve said...

Larry, you're just pissing into the wind with these boys. A cogent argument is not something they can readily understand. Some folks believe what they want to believe, and despite facts and reality, there's nothing that's going to change a mind like that. Reminds me of the North Korean leadership in many respects. Our Fearless Leader and all...

I sure do miss the original purpose of the Field Lab. It's long lost and I'm sure won't be coming back. There's a lot of other people out there creating far more interesting blogs and doing far more interesting things with their lives and talents. Not much point wasting your time here waiting for things to change.

Larry G said...

@Steve - it's frustrating but my conscience drives me to better understand the sentiment because it's become an important part of our politics - and because, in my view, most folks don't arrive at their positions - lightly or with flimsy thinking...

and if I need to re-think something myself - perhaps they see something I don't and I should change my mind... also.

I do challenge but I don't insult and I try to refrain from denigrating... though have my own flaws for sure.

what I have learned (I think) is that some are intensely unhappy with current govt and this POTUS in particular but their reasons why are sometimes not consistent and even contradictory with individuals and across groups.

so basically I DO RESPECT their views.. and I do not dismiss them because most will vote and our system is going to evolve as they do seek change in how we are represented.

long story short - sorry to drag things out... and appreciate everyone's tolerance and my best to the folks who did dialogue!

over and out for now - I hope! ;-) yes.. it's 4am in the East!

WhyR said...

Larry, I really have to honor your patience and good humor. Your impulse to tease apart the issues and inform with facts is admirable, in my opinion. But you could knock yourself out 24/7 and wear yourself to a frazzle without making a single dent in the vast black hole of ignorance the right-wing echo chamber has produced. Facts don't matter to the crowd you're trying to influence. Think Marco Rubio- no actual thought in his reply to Christie, just the same canned response. If a right-winger makes a mistake, they'll NEVER admit it, they just double down. It's the party-wide MO. The republican party is faith based; not tied to reality at all, and it's a disadvantage- they can't go very far without stepping on a rake, and WHAP! Reality bites. The sad part is they adopt an obstructionist role so that minimal work gets done on really important issues like lessening inequality and human-caused climate change. It's a party powered and motivated by fear. When you make people afraid, you can get them to jump in a direction that's not in their own self interest. Evangelists have used this technique forever, getting their converts to come forward with lurid horrific descriptions of hell. Ignorant, low-information voters are being played like a violin- getting whipped into a frenzy by non-issues like the national debt and somebody coming to take their guns away; goose-stepping behind a xenophobic demagogue like trump while their pockets are picked. It looks increasingly like trump will be the nominee. Praise be that he had the impulse to piss off one of the largest voting blocs in the electorate as soon as he announced. And he's demonized others, which will work against him in the general election. If the Democratic nominee wins, look for another four years of hysteria while little gets done. Thank you, rupert and the kochs.
Steve, above, has it just about right IMHO. This ain't about sustainable living off the grid anymore- more like off the rails.

Ronald Mahan said...

------- Let's see now? In summary - John Wells , the host of The Field Lab and his supporters - are said to be bad - bad - bad - by the left leaning socialists. Because they don't like what he writes - when he writes about current affairs! You just try to repeal his Freedom of Speech rights! I noticed John only needed one post to get his point across - but your rabid lovers of SOCIALIST SANDERS - have tried and failed to change our minds - despite all your twisted logic! You guys that love Socialism that much - are free to move to Denmark or China!

Larry G said...

I still have optimism that some folks if they really want to think about things - will at the least - start to suspect that all is not what they want to believe...

I celebrate John's "right" to "free speech" and I PRESUME that if he wants to express himself publicly in his blog - he's also inviting others to express their free speech!!


I mean.. what fun is it to blather on and on about your own views and not listen to others!


pamit said...

I love how Larry G continues to write in a calm and rational way, while responders such as Ronald grow more vituperative with each posting.

Personally, I love my "free stuff" - roads, clean air, and public education. And since I don't live in Flint, MI - my clean water as well!

I'm struck by John's first statement in his post, that the 1% have acquired their great wealth by legal means. Surprising to me that anyone would have the confidence to make a statement like this. In all likelihood, there are the same percentage of "criminals" in the 1% as the rest of us poor slobs, no? Second, the rich can afford the phalanxes of lawyers needed to pursue every tax loophole to avoid paying equitable taxes - or to move their whole corporate "person" offshore! It may be legal, but that doesn't make it right. (RR's apocryphal "welfare queens" used legal means to obtain their "wealth" also, eh?) Third, since the 1% are growing richer, and the bottom dwellers poorer - something is seriously, seriously wrong. Bernie's just put a voice to our discontent, as der Trumpenfuhrer has to your side's, John.

BTW no one's saying John's "bad" for commenting on politics. But whoever commented that John's religious bent dovetails with his conservative political commentary is right on. Which comes first: the religious zealotry (egg) or the right-wing politics (chicken)?

Cortezzz said...

"Boy ! Don't you step out of the line we thought you were in John Wells !!! Youh... youh.. YOUH tricked us ! All of us sustainable off gridders are green/REDS ! And if you're not for us, you're agin us ! Just talk about other stuff so we don't have to realize people can make rational decisions for different reasons to decide to live like this too... We're all the same, smart, graduates, under paid employees of greeedy billionaires, that's why we all wanna be equally poor... People like youhz is unintelligent, and don't think rationally, or just live by your beliefs in God and gun clingin, only listen to faux newz and Rash Limbone and meh meh guns, meh GWB, meh meh wars, meh Karl Rove..."

Leave em spittin and frothing, I say ...
Comments are up again ! Woohoo !

Quinn Satterwaite said...

" But you could knock yourself out 24/7 and wear yourself to a frazzle without making a single dent in the vast black hole of ignorance the right-wing echo chamber has produced"

Kind of an amusing self-referential approach you have adopted there.

The original topic (remember that?) was the sophistry of zero-sum economics and the meme of how it is defended by screaming obscenities at anyone who questions it.
Not much of a 'logical' defense.

But you have added to that fallacy by assuming that your opinion is correct, consequently any argument against your opinion must be wrong and therefor NO ONE should bother even parsing out an position you know to be wrong.

So you are supporting fraudulent argumentation (vulgarity as an intensifier) with more fraudulent argument.

" It's a party powered and motivated by fear. Ignorant, low-information voters are being played like a violin "

Quinn Satterwaite said...

"Personally, I love my "free stuff" "

No duh. Thats why elections are won by the Greater Santa- whoever promises to more free stuff paid for by someone elses credit card.

Sounds like a real sustainable model.

Will Pugh said...

This is why I hate this stuff...
Will n the swamp

Stuart said...

Wow. After reading the comments, I went back and read John's original comments. How did things like religious comments enter? For those who live a frugal life without debt, the idea of living off of borrowed money is repugnant. And, that is what this great country is doing. Just like the buzz word "sustainable", living off borrowed money is not sustainable. I wish the folks in Washington would learn how to balance a check book. Concerning the rest, it is enough to make one apolitical.

Ronald Mahan said...

--- WOW! Stuart certainly exposed the warped thinking of all those "FREE STUFF" lovers!

Stuart said...

Thanks Ronald. My dad had a saying, the truth is the truth. By the way, I like free stuff too, but, not at the expense of others.

pamit said...

Ya'll are missing the point. Hint: if a word or phrase is in quotes, look deeper :-)

If "free stuff" is roads, clean air, and clean water - I imagine you conservatives, despite your protestations, would be quite sad not to have that "free stuff". If you're honest, you'll admit it is indeed the government's "place" to collect money and create this "free stuff".

But the truth is, your side is happy to forget about roads, clean air, and clean water because it doesn't support your premise that government is useless. Ya'll are determined to believe - or have been duped into believing - that we progressives want everything to be free - clothing, food, shelter? And that is simply not the case. Because I got a good "free" education as the child of a pretty poor family in the Deep South, I now have a good job and can afford to pay quite nicely for my food, shelter, and clothing. But if I had to create my own clean air, water, and roads, I'd be up shite creek. And so would you, my friends.

Likewise if I hadn't gotten that good "free" education, I'd probably be living in a trailer with four young'uns, happy to take whatever tidbits the state or feds would throw my way. I know people that live that way down South - yet they still rant and rave about the useless government! (Again...lack of a hint.)

Now let's all go outside and take a deep breath of clean, fresh air. Ommmmm

Stuart said...

I think there is much misconception about a lot of people that are conservative. Let's call them frugal. Why do we think that the Federal Government is feckless? The Social Security trust fund should probably be completely solvent. Why isn't solvent? Politicians of ALL labels have put IOU's in the fund. Is everyone disabled that draws that version of Social Security? The roads should be built with funds collected in fuel taxes. Surprise progressives, I would not mind an increase in State fuel tax, not Federal fuel tax. Why not Federal? As an engineer, I have traveled to many states that have road and bridge problems. The problems are due to a lack of maintenance. Why should a State that maintains it's roads and bridges pay for a State that doesn't. Recently, I got a vehicle license renewal. The fee was raised 50%. Surprise! So, the Federal government is not the only feckless

By the way, I got a good free education through high school. The first 6 years in a two room school without air conditioning and wood heat. Even though my family had very modest income, I completed college education without loans. I worked summers and during college and some help from the folks. It is not impossible. I do appreciate the free education. I do know how to write in cursive. I do appreciate that I know how to type without looking at the keyboard. I do know something about history. I appreciate that we said the pledge of allegiance every morning. I do appreciate that George Washington's picture was on the wall of our classroom.


pamit said...

Well written Stuart. You've made me curious about the national debt: how long, how much, etc? From the wikipedia page: "Except for about a year during 1835–1836, the United States has continuously had a fluctuating public debt since the US Constitution legally went into effect on March 4, 1789. Historically, the United States public debt as a share of GDP has increased during wars and recessions, and subsequently declined. Public debt as a percentage of GDP reached its highest level during Harry Truman's first presidential term, during and after World War II, but fell rapidly in the post-World War II period, and reached a low in 1973. Debt as a percentage of GDP has consistently increased since then, except during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton."

Clearly, the U.S. debt does not function like household debt, since except for one year of this government's existence, we've carried debt, sometimes (like now) at very high levels compared to GDP. I believe the comparison of running the country, debt-wise, like a household - or a business for that matter - doesn't hold water - though it is interesting to think about. Nor do I believe austerity is the way to go when an economy is recovering: witness Britain, Italy, etc. It sounds good, the idea to manage the U.S. economy/debt like a household or business, but the entities aren't similar and the goals of each are completely different.

Ronald Mahan said...

----- Mr. Pamit -- Then there are countries like Greece, and others, that point to the real dangers of living beyond your means. Just because this has not happened to America, although we came very close during the Great Depression, it can happen to us if we keep on spending in excess of our income! Heck, back during the days of the Great Depression - our currency was based on gold & silver - but now - it is only paper - that keeps purchasing less & less! Therefore, I am of the opinion the next Depression - may be even worse.